User talk:Snickersnee/Archive01

   sNkrSnee Don't clik the pix!

- User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]01:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Username
I had wrote you a welcome, but someone beat me to it.

Anyhow, my compliments on a good username. Snickersnee is the name of my bayonet, a 1945 WWII American standard issue one, once belonging to my grandfather. My regards.

Please feel free to ask me anything by posting on my talk page. I'm happy to help.

Yours, --Blackcap | talk 01:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

=
Thank you both for your warm and speedy welcomes, Mysekurity and Blackcap! I hope it's acceptable etiquette to respond here on my own page, as Blackcap suggests on his site. Mysekurity: I will avail myself of the links provided as time permits, and appreciate the guidance. Please let me know if I'm making an idiot of myself. Blackcap: I shall endeavour to live up to my namesake, though I have little doubt which snickersnee will prove the sharper. Snickersnee 02:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Snickersnee, is your SN a reference to Jabberwocky and what noy? Vorpal blades make a similar noise, iirc :) Mathiastck 09:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The vorpal blade says "snickersnack", which is what I enjoy when I am hungry. Close though. My SN is more a reference to this. Snickersnee 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, I meant this. Snickersnee 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Signing
Welcome, first of all. I notice you edited the void article, and signed your edit. Please note that signing should only be used on Talk pages, to show which editor made what comment. In the Article space, signing is unneccesary, as your edits are subject to being edited again, and no single editor can/should claim ownership. -- Ec5618 11:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ec5618 for that clarification. I myself thought it looked awkward to sign it that way, but was unclear on the protocol, so I appreciate your setting me straight. As noted elsewhere, I am far from proud that my first edit was regarding a subject of such dubious nature, and certainly have no ambitions of ownership over "void", in the context I was considering it. Hopefully my subsequent additions to the Creationism discussion page were more useful. Thanks also for the welcome! -- Snickersnee 01:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it wrong to create a talk page for an article that does not exist yet?
I love wikipedia, but I feel like contrubiting interests me very little :) So I basically participate at talk pages.  Plus I suggest articles... whenever wikipedia fails to provide me what I'm looking for.

That's not often, I spend a loooooooooooooooooot of time reading wikipedia articles. But generally I find no faults.

The biggest fault I tend to find is no article exists.... like for John-Roger. Who the hell is the guy? Should I avoid any group he created? Wikipedia could not tell me.

But the whole process of requesting an article... way tooo cumbersome.

So I guess I'll start making bare bones stubs? Just enough they don't get deleted, using some stub template? What I've been doing instead is creating the talk page instead of the article. Mathiastck 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, though I have no idea what the reference to "John-Roger" is all about. I've been mostly inactive here so far, so my counsel should be given little weight. Good luck and let's see how it turns out. Snickersnee 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has deleted Christos experiment yet. Anyway, how are you doing? Mathiastck 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * hi! All I have determined is that Wiki policy frowns on deleting something that could be rescued. Which this *could* in theory, but I have no interest in learning about some ridiculous quackery just to edit a page about it. Maybe if I was some absurd performance cyber artist. Which is maybe a flaw in the system, but I'm not around enough to judge.
 * Otherwise, I'm middling well thanks.
 * Snickersnee 05:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul
You may not have noticedc but I am in the process of rewriting the whole of the last sections on St. Paul's beliefs and theories about St. Paul. I think the whole mythic etc. section on Paul should be deleted. You might care to look at my work in progress on the St. Paul Talk page. Roger Arguile 11:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a market for eveyr opinion and G.A.Wells, not a theologian is a professor of German who has entered foreign territory. He has written that Jesus never existed. His knowledge of ancient texts is limited, but as a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press he may be thought to be demonstrating a POV. he hunts over the same ground as everyone else and has not new material. He just comes to different conclusions. If he merits a line in such a debate I should be surprised. Roger Arguile 12:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

me
No, you weren't my first; I prune old discussions on my talk page when they get stale. Tb 23:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spaghetti Monsters
Thank you for injecting some much needed sense into the FSM discussion. – Steel 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * wow that was fast! You're welcome, thanks for the kind words. I hope it helps. sNkrSnee | t.p.  20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your explanation indeed helped much so. I appreciate it. -EarthRise33 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)